[EM] Fluffy the Dog and group strategy

Craig Layton craigl at froggy.com.au
Fri Sep 14 19:31:34 PDT 2001

Okay, I'm inhabiting an alternative continuum where 99% = 1.

>Regardless of whether the method is sensitive to strengths
>of preferences, we still don't know (from the numbers) if
>the low-utility candidate is an unpopular centrist or just
>somebody's dog. Election methods won't tell us things
>outside the scope of election methods.

I don't think it matters any longer whether the low-utility winner is an
unknown (like a dog) or a centrist whom nobody likes.  The important
consideration is that almost all of the voters are highly dissatisfied with
the outcome, therefore the result isn't a good interpretation or
representation of the voters' preferences.

However, the fact that expected utility ratings are weighted according to
which candidates are running provides some comfort for Condorcet compliant
methods.  If candidate A suddenly drops out of the race, B will become the
highest weighted-utility candidate as well as the winner.  Because I don't
believe that ratings can be expressed non-relatively, I'm not so
enthusiastic about mixed methods that seem to regard 50% + 1 of approval
votes as some magical passport to a political mandate.

[I hope Don's message was satire]

I wish all of you in the US peace and strength.


More information about the Election-Methods mailing list